United States v. 25.4 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., Miscellaneous No. 586.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1945 |
| Docket Number | Miscellaneous No. 586. |
| Citation | 61 F. Supp. 251 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. 25.4 ACRES OF LAND IN BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN, KINGS COUNTY, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Harry T. Dolan, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty. Gen. (Sidney L. Segall, Atty., Dept. of Justice, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner-plaintiff.
Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Julius Isaacs and Alfred D. Jahr, both of New York City, of counsel), for City of New York.
These are a motion and a cross-motion by the United States as Petitioner and the City of New York, in reference to the report of the Commissioners in Condemnation filed April 12, 1945, respecting damage parcels 1, 5, 5-A, 9, 10, 22-A, 23, and 25.
As to parcel 1, it is understood that, upon the argument, the City withdrew its opposition to confirmation and joined in the motion made to confirm by the Government. If that understanding is correct, so much of the motion is granted.
As to parcels 5, 10, and 25, which involve claims for relocation as to an electric power line, and rerouting as to street cars, rendered necessary by the Government's acquisition of a portion of Washington Avenue, the City favors confirmation of the awards, and the Petitioner asserts that it has not had an opportunity to present evidence in opposition to that offered by the City, as the result of a misunderstanding, and now desires that the matter be remitted to the Commission for that purpose. It is not the Court's understanding that such an application was made to the Commissioners and refused by them, that they assumed, in formulating their report, that they were justified in believing that no such opposing evidence was likely to be submitted by the Government.
That the Petitioner should be accorded the chance to present evidence upon a subject which has eventuated into an award of $690,000.00 in round figures to the City seems too clear for labored discussion.
As to parcels 5, 5-A, 9, 10, 22-A, 23, and 25, which involve public streets, a bridge structure, and land under water owned by the City, but subject to easements of navigation, the question is carefully presented in the report and argued pro and con in these motions, as to whether there can be an award to the City for more than nominal damages. The Commission is persuaded in the negative.
In reference to parcel 10 (as to the bridge) an award has been made for the scrap value of the bridge, which the City moves to set aside, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Jersey City
...reaching action. See New York, W. & B. Ry. Co. v. Siebrecht, 73 Misc. 219, 130 N.Y.S. 1005 (Sup.Ct.1911); United States v. 25.4 Acres of Land, etc., 61 F.Supp. 251 (E.D.N.Y.1955); cf. Andrews v. Cox, 127 Conn. 455, 17 A.2d 507 (Sup.Ct.Err.1941); Brackett v. Commonwealth, 223 Mass. 119, 111 ......
-
United States v. City of New York
... ... bridge and trolley line, and two parcels of land under a canal and boat basin — all taken by the ... 1,433 Acres of Land, etc., D.C. Kan., 71 F.Supp. 854; United ... ...
-
United States v. 25.4 Acres of Land, Misc. No. 586.
... ... (reinforced concrete boxes forming bases for the machinery, conduits within the building, etc.) seem to have been treated as part of the realty, and as to them the jury was said to have been ... United States, 261 U.S. 502, 43 S.Ct. 437, 67 L.Ed. 773; Bothwell et al. v. United States, 254 U.S. 231, 41 S.Ct. 74, 65 L.Ed. 238 ... It is one thing for a town or city to be ... ...